Comments on: The Failure of the Gatekeepers

By: Writing on the Ether | JaneFriedman.com | Porter Anderson

Writing on the Ether | JaneFriedman.com | Porter Anderson — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 14:21:42 +0000

[...] Adin, in The Failure of the Gatekeepers at An American Editor, writes [...]

By: Writing on the Ether | Jane Friedman

Writing on the Ether | Jane Friedman — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:01:41 +0000

[...] Adin, in The Failure of the Gatekeepers at An American Editor, writes this week: The…function…of nourishing new writers, has [...]

By: Vicki

Vicki — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 03:41:42 +0000

I’ve just read “The Plagiarist’s Tale” article (thanks for the link) and couldn’t believe what I was reading. What’s worse Rowan has been doing it for more than decade and no one – not even the so-called gatekeepers – had picked up on it. Actually, I shouldn’t be shocked – there have been numerous cases over the years where publishers have been forced to withdraw books with content that was either plagiarised or fiction passed off as fact.

“Consequently, traditional publishers are no longer fulfilling their role as gatekeepers. In the absence of fulfilling that role, what purpose do they serve? Good question. Editorial, PR, marketing and author branding perhaps?

By: The Failure of the Gatekeepers - The Digital Reader

The Failure of the Gatekeepers - The Digital Reader — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:05:49 +0000

[...] a great profession and brought great literature to the reading public.reposted with permission from An American Editor /**/ Tags:No Comments so far ↓There are no comments yet…Kick things off by filling out the [...]

By: americaneditor

americaneditor — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:07:31 +0000

Good thought, Len. Fact-checking might include plagiarism checking but also stands on its own. I can add one more problem, but one for which I don’t know of any solution prepublication: verifying that cited sources really do support the proposition for which they are cited. One good example: consider the recent Citizens United decision by the United States Supreme Court in which the court cited a case from the 1880s/1890s to support the idea that corporations are “persons” for purposes of political speech. The cited case never said that. That was an editor’s headnote to the 1880s/1890s case, which was the editor’s interpretation (worth noting is that the editor was also a business person who had promoted that perspective in the case), made after the case was decided. This is a common problem in legal briefs: the lawyers have no time or money to do more than read the headnotes of a case, headnotes not written by the deciding court but by outside editors, and so no law often becomes bad law and bad law gets perpetuated.

By: Len Feldman

Len Feldman — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:18:56 +0000

I’d add a fourth function: Fact-checking. As part of the editorial process, publishers used to employ fact-checkers who would verify an author’s statements of fact and challenge statements that they couldn’t verify. I’m sure that some publishers still employ fact-checkers, but the cases of publishers that allow books to go to print with egregious errors (both intentional and accidental) are multiplying.

By: Carolyn

Carolyn — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:33:42 +0000

“Consequently, traditional publishers are no longer fulfilling their role as gatekeepers.”

Although the trend in this direction is real, the above statement is a sweeping generalization that will surely insult everyone in the industry who’s trying like mad to uphold standards.

As a writer, I still look toward traditional publishers as the most desirable path to publication. Yeah, I can get published faster and easier through non-traditional venues, and make or keep more money. But I can’t expect the intellectual and craft support that’s still available through the top tier of traditional publishers, nor rely on the quality judgment of others outside that tier.

“In the absence of fulfilling that role, what purpose do they serve? Many ebookers today would say traditional publishers serve no role at all and should follow their dinosaur ancestors into oblivion. Perhaps they are right. Perhaps the time has come for the breakup of the conglomerate publisher and the return of the smaller, independent publishers, the ones who made publishing a great profession and brought great literature to the reading public.”

This breakup is already in process. Many great editors and publishers are dismayed (if not unemployed!) by the changes overwhelming the industry yet their passion is still to produce great books. Such people who are in a position to do so are starting to scramble around and reinvent and find new pathways to keep the flame alive. It’s happening in print and electronic publishing, because people in both sides of the industry still want some way to achieve and sustain quality books. The first part of the challenge is to organize into viable small companies; the second part is for authors and editors to find each other amid all the shouting. A new marketing and communications channel must develop in conjunction with the changeover, since popular social media have become just so much noise.